Republican Candidate Criticized for Speaking Truth: Islam ‘Antithesis of Constitution’

Here comes the SPLC.

Phillip Parrish is running as a Republican for governor in Minnesota. He is considered a “long-shot” candidate because this is his first time in politics. But all it took was him speaking the truth about Islam to bring some much-need attention to his campaign.

Parrish was contacted by Regina Mustafa, the founder of the Community Interfaith Dialogue on Islam, after she learned he met with Islam critic Usama Dakdok. Mustafa invited Parrish to sit down with her and “hear from a person who actually practices Islam.”

Though the gubernatorial candidate agreed to meet with Mustafa, it wasn’t without this declaration: “I separate Islam from the word faith because faith takes belief and Islam requires only submission.” Parrish also said he wanted Mustafa to publicly denounce sharia law because, “Islam, sharia and the Quran are the antithesis of the U.S. Constitution.”

An enraged Mustafa posted the message to Facebook and Parrish soon appeared on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s website. Other Muslim activists chimed in as well, including Muslim Advocates policy director Scott Simpson, who called Parrish’s comments “anti-Muslim bigotry.” The candidate was asked to drop out of the race over his supposed Islamophobia.

In response, Parrish doubled down his efforts to expose the truth of Islam:

“I see myself as a person attempting to expose those who are attempting to set up rules and laws and regulations contrary to the U.S. Constitution.

“It’s causing harm to people. Thousands of analysts like myself, thousands of law enforcement specialists have been trying to tell leadership this same message for over 20 years. And no one seems to want to listen or they live in some kind of utopic world of no, people really don’t think like that. They don’t really mean to cut somebody’s hand off because they stole something. They don’t really mean to put someone to death because they defiled themselves with an unclean woman. They don’t really mean to rape little boys on Thursday night because the imam gave them permission to do that.”

Mustafa countered, saying Muslims respect the Constitution and feel “at risk” because of those who feel like Parrish. But Robert Spencer over at Jihad Watch noticed a “sleight of hand” by Mustafa who substituted “Islam” with “Muslim” in her counter argument. Here is his analysis:

Parrish wasn’t talking about Muslims, he was talking about Islam. The two are conflated endlessly, but they are not the same, any more than Christians and Christianity are the same. Any given Christian may not love his neighbor and turn the other cheek, but Christianity nonetheless still teaches that they should. Any given Muslim, like any other human being of any faith or no faith, will have a variety of priorities, perspectives, influences, etc. He or she will not necessarily live 100% in accord with everything that Islam teaches, but that does not change what Islam teaches. The central question here, of whether or not Islam is compatible with the U.S. Constitution, is not answered by what some or even many Muslims do or do not do. It can only be answered by examining the teachings of the Qur’an and Sunnah.

In those sources, we find a denial of the freedom of speech in the prohibition of criticism of Islam, a denial of equality of rights for women, and a call for violence against and the subjugation under the hegemony of Islamic law of those who are non-Muslims, denying them basic rights. Regina Mustafa should explain whether or not these teachings are compatible with the U.S. Constitution. But an establishment media that invokes the hard-Left smear group the Southern Poverty Law Center as if it were a neutral and reliable source is never going to ask Mustafa such questions.

The Left has fully embraced Islam and will use whatever linguistic gymnastics it takes to protect the followers of that religion no matter how many times its adherents put targets on Westerners.

H/T Geller Report